Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

Burgold

By Burgold
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

B&G

B&G

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

 

I say you did. You say you didn't.  So it's a he said-he said. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Tell you what.  I'll give you a week to conduct an investigation by searching back through the thread to figure out who it was that mentioned him.  I would do it but it would be too soul-sucking for me to relive these last couple of days.

 

 

 

I have no regard for you so don't give a damn what you do.  I will give you this....your behavior is consistent with your fellow leftists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Oh so NOW FBI investigations are all cool and stuff.

 

Well Democrats were asking for FBI investigations before they were cool.

 

They could have asked earlier....like a month ago or more

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

I still am in a state of some confusion. It still feels so parced and carefully worded.  What does "limited scope" mean.  So let's say on Day 6 there is a break in the investigation one way or another....Day 7 rolls around and the FBI is submitting their findings but also say they have leads they need more time to question and follow and all that?  Will the Senate say "Ok...." or "Nope submit what you have as of right now, it's over?"

 

Also, any word on whether Trump is actually willing to go along with this yet?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted

Oh Good. Another week of this. Want to hear more weird Ivy League/Princeton stuff to kill time? I have Menendez Brother stories, James Hogue stories, A Beautiful Mind stories, Nude Olympics stuff, Bicker stuff, etc. I once talked to a local con artist for an hour on the phone, because she somehow convinced me she was Doug Flutie's sister. I got threatened by the rugby team. I had a weird argument with a Penn Daily sports writer that became a small feud. I was involved in trying to expose Pete Carill as history's greatest monster two months before we beat UCLA. I met William F. Buckley. I went to a James Brown concert that lasted 36 minutes.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinC

MartinC

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, B&G said:

I have no regard for you so don't give a damn what you do.  I will give you this....your behavior is consistent with your fellow leftists.

 

Here is the thing - your behaviour right here is not consistent with our rules.

 

One of which is about being respectful to your fellow posters. Feel free to attack his positions and posts but you are NOT free to attack him.

 

Penalty will be applied in this case and general warning as this whole things gets messier and messier - keep the conversations on here civil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B&G

B&G

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Here is the thing - your behaviour right here is not consistent with our rules.

 

One of which is about being respectful to your fellow posters. Feel free to attack his positions and posts but you are NOT free to attack him.

 

Penalty will be applied in this cas and general warning as this whole things gets messier and messier - keep the conversations on here civil.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Llevron

Llevron

Posted
Posted

If nothing comes from this many of us will have to accept it I think. 

 

All things considered I expect him to withdrawal. But if not, and hes clean, and they talk to all the people who came out and said it fits his character.....then we will have to take it. 

 

I expect though that he was lying about his drinking habits, and if so, he shouldn't be allowed back on the bench. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nerm

Nerm

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I still am in a state of some confusion. It still feels so parced and carefully worded.  What does "limited scope" mean.  So let's say on Day 6 there is a break in the investigation one way or another....Day 7 rolls around and the FBI is submitting their findings but also say they have leads they need more time to question and follow and all that?  Will the Senate say "Ok...." or "Nope submit what you have as of right now, it's over?"

 

Also, any word on whether Trump is actually willing to go along with this yet?

 

My guess would be that the scope would be limited to the specific allegations of assault.  As in, what evidence is there

that the specific events that he is being accused of happened as they are described.  Not issues such as did he get drunk a lot, or was he sexually active.  

 

Edited by Nerm
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Spearfeather said:

 

That wasn't my point. It wasn't " Republicans " saying Judge didn't want to talk. It was Judge saying Judge didn't want to talk.

Why not both.  Also he is still saying he doesn't want to talk in public.  

Edited by visionary
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nerm

Nerm

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, twa said:

Maybe we need to move away from the Ivy League and nominate real Americans LKB?

 

:pint:

 

I was thinking the other day that the problems with our government are never going to get better, because by definition we will always have politicians making the decisions.  Maybe it would be better to "draft" groups of random citizens, then vote on them to see who gets the job.

 

Obviously this would be flawed and unworkable, but I hate the nature of politics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted

Trying to figure out what McConnell is up to in agreeing to this. A few possibilities.

 

1) Those 3 truly stepped up and put their foot down so ge had no choice.

2) He know the investigation can be managed and limited so it's more or less neutered.

3) They told him they'd still vote yes almost no matter what but had to at least make a show of it for the pissed off people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bacon

Bacon

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Trying to figure out what McConnell is up to in agreeing to this. A few possibilities.

 

1) Those 3 truly stepped up and put their foot down so ge had no choice.

2) He know the investigation can be managed and limited so it's more or less neutered.

3) They told him they'd still vote yes almost no matter what but had to at least make a show of it for the pissed off people.

 

I'm rolling with 2. The repeated insistence on time and scope limits certainly points to that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Nerm said:

 

I was thinking the other day that the problems with our government are never going to get better, because by definition we will always have politicians making the decisions.  Maybe it would be better to "draft" groups of random citizens, then vote on them to see who gets the job.

 

Obviously this would be flawed and unworkable, but I hate the nature of politics.

 

Pointing out that part of the way we got to where we are is because a bunch of people voted for somebody who "isn't a politician". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...